WOW! Commercial blasts Kerry

[Larry Gude]

So far...

...all I've seen on TV news is that this is an attack piece and THAT OUR LORD AND GOD JOHN MCAIN, SENATOR, RUPUBLICAN, HAS SAID IT'S DISHONEST AND DISHONORABLE.

I've yet to see, anywhere, a single question asked as to whether or not these guys are telling the truth.

So far, it's a damn sight more to go on than Micheal Moores claims and inuendos.

Again, The DNC and Kerry have taken the stand that the ONLY thing that matters is that Kerry served in Viet Nam.

 

[Pete]

Re: So far...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...all I've seen on TV news is that this is an attack piece and THAT OUR LORD AND GOD JOHN MCAIN, SENATOR, RUPUBLICAN, HAS SAID IT'S DISHONEST AND DISHONORABLE.

I've yet to see, anywhere, a single question asked as to whether or not these guys are telling the truth.

So far, it's a damn sight more to go on than Micheal Moores claims and inuendos.

Again, The DNC and Kerry have taken the stand that the ONLY thing that matters is that Kerry served in Viet Nam.

These guys get trashed for claiming Kerry is not the hero he claims to be yet Micheal Moore gets to sit in the Presidential box at the DNC convention.

Kerry makes a huge production of his Vietnam service and has a mini movie and the guys ride a ferry to the DNC and everyone is giving reach arounds. When some one disputes his "heroic" 4 months it is "Old news form 30 years ago and has no place in politics, but W's guard records are relavent?

 

[jlabsher]

One of the guys in the Kerry attack (his CO) has retracted his statement.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF


Hmmm....

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by FromTexas
No, all on the boat but the deceased and one living are supporting Kerry. The Hannity and Colmes thing was laughable last night. The Swiftboats guy gave very reasonable answers and the fill-in b**** was just attacking him. All she could fixate on was the line about whether he was actually ON the boat with Kerry. He answered very reasonably that all the people who are involved interacted with Kerry (and crew) and witnessed a lot of the incidents involved. Her beef was just that they weren't actually on his swiftboat.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty interesting that when she was talking to the swiftboat guy she was only concerned about whether he was on the boat with Kerry. He wasn't and he never claimed to be. Then when she was was talking to Rasmussen, she kept saying that the swiftboat guy didn't serve with Kerry (which he did). She also never asked if Rasmussen was a crewman on Kerry's boat (he wasn't).

 

[Spoiled]

Re: Re: So far...

Originally posted by Pete
These guys get trashed for claiming Kerry is not the hero he claims to be yet Micheal Moore gets to sit in the Presidential box at the DNC convention.

Kerry makes a huge production of his Vietnam service and has a mini movie and the guys ride a ferry to the DNC and everyone is giving reach arounds. When some one disputes his "heroic" 4 months it is "Old news form 30 years ago and has no place in politics, but W's guard records are relavent?

His records didnt win him awards and he wasnt part of an investigation for war crimes

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Pete
When some one disputes his "heroic" 4 months it is "Old news form 30 years ago and has no place in politics, but W's guard records are relavent?

Let's not forget that 25 year old DWI that Democrats thought was so important.

 

[ylexot]

Re: Re: Re: So far...

Originally posted by Spoiled
His records didnt win him awards and he wasnt part of an investigation for war crimes

I fail to see your point. Actually, I fail to see what you're talking about. Who is "he"? Bush, Moore, a swiftboat guy, Kerry?

 

[Spoiled]

Re: Re: Re: Re: So far...

Originally posted by ylexot
I fail to see your point. Actually, I fail to see what you're talking about. Who is "he"? Bush, Moore, a swiftboat guy, Kerry?

Bush's and Moore's... BUt what ever.... His stuff had already been investigated.... He won awards because the investigation turned up nothing negative which is why he won.... Now 30 years later people are saying kerry doesnt deserve them, where were they 30 years ago?

 

[ylexot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So far...

Originally posted by Spoiled
Bush's and Moore's... BUt what ever....

Ok, so you were saying the Bush's records didn't win him any awards and Moore wasn't part of an investigation for war crimes. Who was part of an investigation for war crimes?

Originally posted by Spoiled
His stuff had already been investigated.... He won awards because the investigation turned up nothing negative which is why he won.... Now 30 years later people are saying kerry doesnt deserve them, where were they 30 years ago?

Who are you talking about now? I'm guessing Kerry, but you really need to learn to get your point across better. Usually you're much better than this.

 

[ylexot]

Now for my opinion...

from the boston.com article linked above
Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.
In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."
Asked whether that meant that he had shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, ''No, absolutely not," adding that the enemy had been running to a hut for cover, where he could have destroyed Kerry's boat and killed the crew.

This quote including what was said by Kerry make me question his Silver Star. I fail to see how anyone can be running away, yet poised to fire a rocket launcher. I also fail to see how it's possible to not shoot someone in the back when they are running away. Lastly, I fail to see how this action is worthy of a Silver Star. Lots of people shot the enemy in Vietnam. It was a war after all.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'll go ahead and be the first to say that I couldn't care less if Kerry shot some VC in the back, burned a village or committed some other "war crime". War is war and you do what you have to to win. Plus, we haven't had a President who's killed a man in a long time.

My problem is with the hypocrisy that seems to make up the bulk of the Democratic party's strategy.

 

[Spoiled]

Re: Now for my opinion...

Originally posted by ylexot
This quote including what was said by Kerry make me question his Silver Star. I fail to see how anyone can be running away, yet poised to fire a rocket launcher. I also fail to see how it's possible to not shoot someone in the back when they are running away. Lastly, I fail to see how this action is worthy of a Silver Star. Lots of people shot the enemy in Vietnam. It was a war after all.

OK here... YOu have a rocket launcher and are standing in the middle of a street... SOmeone pops out of an ally with a gun... Are you going to stand in the open or run for cover.... Run for cover, then turn and shoot....

 

[Spoiled]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

My problem is with the hypocrisy that seems to make up the bulk of the Democratic party's strategy.

Its coming from both sides though... And the dems say more that i agree with.... So im choosing the lesser of 2 evils...

 

[ylexot]

Re: Re: Now for my opinion...

Originally posted by Spoiled
OK here... YOu have a rocket launcher and are standing in the middle of a street... SOmeone pops out of an ally with a gun... Are you going to stand in the open or run for cover.... Run for cover, then turn and shoot....

I'm saying you can't run and be poised to shoot at the same time. That's what Kerry claimed. If he shot a guy with a rocket launcher in the back...fine. Admit it. Don't deny it so adamantly. To deny it is dishonest.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Spoiled
Its coming from both sides though...

Scott McClellan came out yesterday and denounced the Swift Boat book and accusations. Kerry, on the other hand, is using Michael Moore's accusations as the basis for his campaign. Kerry just came out busting on Bush for the "7 minutes" on 9-11 morning. So there's a big difference here.

Short of torching the Constitution, no President can prevent people from voicing their opinion. So I'm not talking about the actions of various supporters - I'm talking about the actual candidates themselves and party representatives.

This is America and Michael Moore can say what he wants, just as the SB guys can say what they want. How the candidates and party officials respond to this sort of stuff is what matters. George Bush distances himself from negative campaigning (unless you consider bringing up Kerry's public voting record "negative campaigning). Kerry, on the other hand, has repeatedly embraced the nutties in HIS party - from that Whoopie Goldberg fiasco to Michael Moore to Bush's Guard rumors.

That's the difference.

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Scott McClellan came out yesterday and denounced the Swift Boat book and accusations. Kerry, on the other hand, is using Michael Moore's accusations as the basis for his campaign. Kerry just came out busting on Bush for the "7 minutes" on 9-11 morning. So there's a big difference here.

Short of torching the Constitution, no President can prevent people from voicing their opinion. So I'm not talking about the actions of various supporters - I'm talking about the actual candidates themselves and party representatives.

This is America and Michael Moore can say what he wants, just as the SB guys can say what they want. How the candidates and party officials respond to this sort of stuff is what matters. George Bush distances himself from negative campaigning (unless you consider bringing up Kerry's public voting record "negative campaigning). Kerry, on the other hand, has repeatedly embraced the nutties in HIS party - from that Whoopie Goldberg fiasco to Michael Moore to Bush's Guard rumors.

That's the difference.

:whatshesaid:

 

[Spoiled]

Guard Rumors? You mean his records that where missing then turned up to show that the rumors where true: he didnt show?

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by Spoiled
Guard Rumors? You mean his records that where missing then turned up to show that the rumors where true: he didnt show?

Are you high? What rumors were true?? You sure seem to be deeply mired in the sheeptank, Spoiled.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Spoiled
Guard Rumors? You mean his records that where missing then turned up to show that the rumors where true: he didnt show?

Dodger, speak to the point. Why is it that when the Dems embrace thier loonies, Moore, Goldberg and the rest who villify Bush it is ok and free speech, yet when someone independent of the Bush campaign takes initiative to refute claims of "Heroism" it is dirty pool and the DNC lawyers are sabre rattling to TV stations.

Lastly, in wartime, especially Vietnam medals flow like water. 30 years ago it was the only reward commanders could give to their men so they were liberal. The truth of the matter is Kerry is focussing on his military service from the posters and pictures in uniform, the mini movie, the reunion of his crewman, the ferry ride and lastly with his goofy assed salute at the DNC. If you are going to hitch your wagon to a horse you better be ready for the horse to be whipped.

 

[Spoiled]

Originally posted by otter
Are you high? What rumors were true?? You sure seem to be deeply mired in the sheeptank, Spoiled.

He didnt show up for duty several times IIRC